Democracy is simply a new system of control- like Christianity was back in the first centuries A.D. Few churchgoers are going to read about Constintine or Julian or the corrupt early Church Fathers.
One cannot educate a dull brain. Simplicity is elegance in disguise. On Sep 1, 6:22 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Yours is the standard scientific view Lee - scientists tend to be > amazed anything looks simple. We use the term 'simplexity' because we > always found almost chaotic complexity under what appears simple - and > sometimes find simple equations that remarkably describe complexity. > At school we get taught that there are right answers - the ones up the > teachers' sleeves. In fact things are much more complicated than this > and I wonder what actually does get learned. Mot students find it > hard to cope with ideas that disrupt authority, or that distinguish > immanent and analytic (critique from within a system or from outside > with different fundamentals) - they get restless with doubt and can't > understand it doesn't destroy everything. Logic, which often gets > perverse in extremes,is beyond most. They are used to needing to be > certain and find it difficult to learn to be wrong or to learn for > themselves. > > My reasoning is that we have failed to 'teach' over eons and aren't > learning from this. I suspect the origin of schooling and believe its > main function is discipline to the status quo. Most people can learn > to drive - we need more learning like that on social-democratic issues > - by doing different stuff at a level where the actions become the > learning. Most people would rather 'get rich' than get rich in > learning - they want to be able to support families or what they see > as good times. They confuse having with being - but why not given the > game of life in front of them? Students are not desperate to learn > but frantic about passing. They learned something to get to this > position. Where from, how - and how might this be changed so they > learn something else? My 'simpler' would be a social change they can > cope with instead of the intellectual which they can't start. > > On Sep 1, 9:29 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would love to hear the tought process behind this guess Neil, it > > seems to fly in the face of my own experiances? > > > I used to belive that things are ultimatly more simple than they > > appear to be, I no longer belive this. Life is complex, we live in a > > complex system/universe. > > > Yes we use all sorts of things other than intelect and reasoning to > > guide us, belifes, best guesses, feelings, emotions and intuition are > > part of the human physche. > > > On Aug 31, 10:51 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > My guess is we are not as individual as we think Lee. And there has > > > to be something simpler than intellectualism to guide. I'm inclined > > > to see the moral field like the Python poverty joke = on can always > > > outdo the hairy shirt or crown of thorns! > > > > On Aug 31, 5:32 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Here is the rub Neil. > > > > > What duties do you speak of, by what law do these duties arise? > > > > > There are of course laws that say you will not murder and if you do > > > > you will be punished/face rehabilitation. But we all know that people > > > > are free to hold to or brake laws at their own whim. > > > > > So there are no duties except those that the individual imposses upon > > > > himself. > > > > > OM does offten suggest there are errors in all kinds of thoughts, and > > > > of course he is free to do so, but that to is a function of the canny > > > > mind of OM. Is he right, is he wrong? > > > > > I don't know. I do know that he and I agree on some things and > > > > disagree on others. > > > > > Did we go in a circle then and are we back to simple belife structers? > > > > > We are not all one mind, I doubt pending global catasphroy we will > > > > ever be, humanity is a funny old beast indeed. > > > > > The thing with me is individualism, to attempt to engage individuals > > > > as veried as there are shades of colour, to think alike, to plot > > > > alike, to vote alike, to reason alike seems an impossible task, but > > > > ahhhh I guess some of us have to try, and I say hats off to them. > > > > > Hehh of course though, this is a function of my own mind. > > > > > On Aug 31, 2:33 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > None of the above stops duties for an individual like not killing, > > > > > stealing and so on being simple ways to express rules of thumb for a > > > > > decent society, or thinking by individuals trying to improve same or > > > > > come up with ideas free of socially approved epistemic authority - > > > > > indeed, given human collective history this is probably a rule of > > > > > thumb itself. > > > > > Orn often suggests that there are errors in nihilist thinking (as a > > > > > broad label) - I agree. Modern deconstruction ends up telling us some > > > > > things are undecidable and we have to do our best with them. A bit > > > > > like playing a leg-spinner when you can't spot his googlie. This is > > > > > unremarkable - what might be important is that socially decision- > > > > > making is broadly established in an elite and the decisions need not > > > > > be - often obviously decidable. This is very animal stuff and we > > > > > surely can't be sensibly voting for it. How can we vote for > > > > > autonomy? We might start thinking that there is a moral cause against > > > > > representative government that so inevitably decides in the interests > > > > > of such a small group. Moral thinking against established authority > > > > > is easily justified - our literature once praised it - often with > > > > > existential heroes battling torpid discrimination masquerading as > > > > > objective good sense. I suspect what goes wrong in merely > > > > > deconstructive thinking is a point at which authority is banished as > > > > > we recognise its violence and forget that this is merely the ground of > > > > > default to might is right. > > > > > > On Aug 31, 12:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Getting out of the mess we're in is perhaps a forlorn hope, but the > > > > > > odd one of hem came off! History as taught is useless other than in > > > > > > creating factional madness. Biology might help us overcome our > > > > > > failure to recognise how animal we are and history could show us the > > > > > > repeated blunders we keep falling for. My thesis is that argument > > > > > > hasn't helped us much - my guess being we are broadly ineducable > > > > > > through schooling and need a more technological form. I think we > > > > > > have > > > > > > the hard technology but have failed to make this socio-technical to > > > > > > date. > > > > > > I see some of this as 'moral' in that we can clearly challenge all > > > > > > morality - this leading to something rigsy said on the hapless ego > > > > > > state of making this mean 'other people are wrong' - surely (the ego > > > > > > state - not rigsy) childish. Most of us still live and die very > > > > > > parochially and one lesson is that the apparent differences in > > > > > > moral- > > > > > > religious thinking are just cultural. I would be more like Vam and > > > > > > he > > > > > > more like me if our birth places and families been exchanged. Born > > > > > > in > > > > > > Islamic families we would both likely be Muslim. This was > > > > > > recognised > > > > > > before Descartes (Maupassant I think). Some of my Muslim students > > > > > > think this is not the case because they are chosen. > > > > > > The question is less one of the nihilist rejection of morality and > > > > > > more one of a global morality we can sensibly adhere to. The term > > > > > > 'global morality' is scary as is any totalising solution. And many > > > > > > of > > > > > > the issues we need to grip and grok are scary too - population > > > > > > control > > > > > > is one - not least because we presumably want people to be able to > > > > > > live in comfort and plenty - something likely to raise breeding > > > > > > potential. If we think of the Earth as a commons, then we should > > > > > > expect the issue of the tragedy of the commons to arise. How do we > > > > > > tell the people who want then 'no more big families'? How do we > > > > > > justify issues on disability that would arise? If we want power to > > > > > > be > > > > > > democratic, How do we prevent power through wealth, whether through > > > > > > capitalist accumulation to a few individuals or the State =both of > > > > > > which have a history of either war or oppression or both? Some will > > > > > > say we are better off not addressing such matters as human planning > > > > > > is > > > > > > always a mess and we are better off leaving things to the chance of > > > > > > evolution, war being part of this - the purpose of man is to be a > > > > > > warrior and women's to be recreation for the warrior and such rot. > > > > > > Others are more fatalist in that none of this mat matter much as the > > > > > > overall plan goes on whatever human trivia makes some believe. > > > > > > My view is that religion and various other myths of origin, all > > > > > > containing perverse views amongst their elites that ordinary people > > > > > > can't cope with the recognition they are myths (Plato is the > > > > > > classic) > > > > > > and only the priests or guardians can, are rationalist fantasies - > > > > > > but > > > > > > what bigger such fantasy as the very idea of anything global that > > > > > > would ask all to take on a 'morality'! > > > > > > We leave out a major 'purpose' in economics in much of our moral > > > > > > thinking - that of the West (still currently the major military > > > > > > power) > > > > > > being on top and staying on top. The idea in this is that to > > > > > > prevent > > > > > > a "backward change" the West needs to dominate economically in order > > > > > > to attract the innovation needed to stay on top. What, for > > > > > > instance, > > > > > > would the current situation be now if Muslim states had equivalent > > > > > > military power, or a dominant one? It is also clear that the same > > > > > > economics is profoundly anti-democratic in that our own ability to > > > > > > manage through it is severely restricted, probably by the > > > > > > accumulation > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
